Debt Relief for Poor Countries

John Denham: I am today announcing a consultation on local democratic renewal. This follows the commitment set out in "Building Britain's Future" to explore ways of increasing both the powers and the accountability of councils and city regions. Local democratic renewal forms a major part of the Government's proposals for constitutional reform, alongside other strands for debate including reforming the House of Lords; considering a written constitution; reviewing the electoral system; and increasing public engagement in politics.
	The founding principle of local government is that citizens have the right to influence the decisions that affect their lives and their communities. A key way in which local citizens are able to exercise that right is their ability to elect a strong local council which can lead and shape their area. That is why the role of councillors and councils, with their unique democratic mandate, is critical to making sure that local services are responsive to the needs of their local communities. Citizens have a right to have their voices heard, and to expect those delivering services to care what they think.
	Citizens rightly expect that councils should be the centre of local decision making, and the one place that they can go in order to influence and challenge what local services are doing. In order to do this, councils must be fully equipped to act on behalf of local residents, with the powers to scrutinise and shape local public services, and respond to local need.
	There is a large and untapped pool of people who would like more say in what happens in their area, and it is right that both central and local government do more to give them greater direct control over the decisions that affect their lives and their community. But we must also recognise that in today's time-poor society, citizens have only limited time to give.
	There are other imperatives driving the need for stronger local government. First, it is to increase democratic accountability, since councils, uniquely among local services, have a direct democratic mandate from residents. Secondly, it is a way of promoting greater value for money. Local government has already saved £4.5 billion through efficiency measures since 2004. By giving them greater powers to oversee and co-ordinate all the money coming into their area, they will better be able to drive change and improvement, cutting out duplication and waste. Thirdly, councils have a vital role to play in promoting economic development. They are best placed to bring together partners from across their area to support residents and prepare for future prosperity. And finally, delivering personalised services. As the drive continues to deliver personalised services and enforceable entitlements it will become ever more important to ensure that local services are delivered flexibly and in response to local needs.
	Recent reform has gone some way to giving councils the powers they need to play this stronger role. The three year financial settlement means that councils have much greater certainty to plan ahead. They have powers to promote the economic, social, and environmental wellbeing of their area. And they have powers of scrutiny to challenge and hold to account some of those who provide public services and serve their local communities.
	This consultation sets out proposals to radically reform and strengthen local government so that it is even more able to take on a new role in serving residents by strengthening public service delivery.
	It contains proposals to:
	Put local authorities at the centre of local decision making. Our aspiration is that they should be the one place where citizens, through their councillors, can hold local services to account. This would mean that when citizens go to vote, they are electing someone who can act on their behalf in relation to every aspect of public spending in their area. We propose to achieve this by enhancing local authorities' power to scrutinise other bodies, and extending the range of bodies that these powers can be applied to. This builds on the concept of the total place initiative, which gives councils a unique role in scrutinising all the money that comes into their area.
	Strengthen local government's ability to act in the local interest. We ask whether councils have the powers that they need to respond effectively to local challenges, or whether there are barriers which prevent them using the powers they already have. This will be essential to enable local authorities to deliver the minimum entitlements set out in Building Britain's Future. We also set out our response to the recent LAML judgement: proposing to introduce a specific power enabling councils to engage in mutual insurance and exploring what other arrangements councils may want to engage in but which may fall beyond the existing power to promote well being. We also ask whether more could be done to do further reduce the burden of inspection and clarify when and where central Government should intervene in local government.
	Strengthen local authorities' ability to tackle climate change. We propose to give councils more direct responsibility for fighting climate change, perhaps through introducing local carbon budgets.
	Support sub-regional working. We set out a range of options to make sure that the greater powers being devolved to city-regions and other sub-regional partnerships are matched by greater transparency and accountability for local residents.
	Achieve a clearer relationship between central and local government. We set out the principles in which central and local government broadly operate and ask whether these should be more formally articulated, in order to give citizens greater clarity and certainty about our respective roles and functions. We also explore the possibilities for overseeing these more formal arrangements—potentially through an ombudsman or a joint select committee, subject to the outcomes of the consultation and the views of Parliament.
	The consultation seeks views on these proposals and will run from 21 July until 2 October 2009. Copies of the consultation document have been placed in the Library of both Houses.

Rosie Winterton: I am today announcing the publication of the Government's response to our public consultation on "Reforming the Local Authority Business Growth Incentives Scheme", which sets out that we will distribute a total of £100 million to local authorities in 2009-10 and 2010-11.
	The Government launched the consultation on 25 August 2008 and invited comments to help refine their thinking before a new scheme was introduced for 2009-10 and 2010-11. The consultation closed on 20 November 2008.
	Given the broad support the Government's proposals have received, the revised scheme will largely be as proposed in the consultation, although with two significant changes made in response to the representations we received.
	(a) Instead of the mapping of local authorities into 28 sub-regions plus London as originally proposed for the purposes of the scheme, we have decided to recognise 55 smaller sub-regions including London. We believe this will go a long way towards reflecting local views about the economic relationships that actually exist;
	(b) Instead of the proposed split of rewards between district councils and county councils in two tier areas (which would have favoured the upper tier), we have decided to divide rewards equally between them.
	The decision on sub-regional mapping follows further consultation, in February 2009, further to which we invited all local authorities, including those that did not respond to the consultation, to enter into discussions with nearby authorities in an effort to reach a local consensus about the sub-regional mapping they wished the Government to consider.
	In the consultation responses, the balance of opinion was that we should publish a provisional list of sub-regions for comment first rather than proceed directly to publish a final list, which we have done at annex A of our consultation response.
	Here we are also setting out the proposed allocation of the £50 million available in 2009-10.
	A period of two weeks will now be available to authorities to make any final representations on both the provisional list of sub-regions and on the provisional allocations for 2009-10, before those allocations are made.
	The Government's response to the consultation, along with the provisional list of sub-regions and provisional allocations for 2009-10, is available on the Communities and Local Government website at: http://www.communities. gov.uk/localgovernment/localgovernmentfinance/labgi/labgischeme2/
	Copies of these documents are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

Shahid Malik: I am today publishing a list of receptions hosted by Ministers at the Department for Communities and Local Government in 2008-09.
	The total cost of these receptions was £23,500.
	
		
			 Date Host Event Venue Number of Attendees 
			 03-07-08 Secretary of State-the right hon. Hazel Blears MP CLG Joint Reception for Beacon Awards Winners and Empowerment White Paper at LGA Conference 2008 Windsor Hall, Bournemouth International Conference Centre 120 
			 09-07-08 Secretary of State-the right hon. Hazel Blears MP CLG Summer Press Reception Eland House 50 
			 10-07-08 Secretary of State-the right hon. Hazel Blears MP Local Priorities: Local Area Agreements Stakeholder Reception Eland House 120 
			 15-07-08 Secretary of State-the right hon. Hazel Blears MP Thames Gateway Investor Reception Marble Hall,  One Birdcage Walk,  Westminster 50 
			 07-10-08 Secretary of State-the right hon. Hazel Blears MP Eid Ul-Fitr Reception (co-hosted with Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary) Foreign and  Commonwealth  Office 400 
			 15-12-08 Secretary of State-the right hon. Hazel Blears MP CLG Christmas Press Reception Jubilee Room, House of Commons 50 
			 04-02-09 Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State-Iain Wright MP HCA Transition Reception for Chairs and Chief Execs of housing growth areas and Local Delivery Boards Portcullis House 25

John Denham: In February, the Government announced proposals to support third sector organisations through the Tackling Race Inequalities Fund. Today, I am pleased to announce to the House that 27 national and regional organisations will receive grants totalling £8.8 million over two years.
	The third sector organisations are:
	1990 Trust
	Age UK (Age Concern and Help the Aged)
	Association for Real Change (ARC)
	Black Environment Network
	Black Training and Enterprise Group (BTEG)
	Business in the Community (Race for Opportunity)
	Clinks
	Council for Ethnic Minority Communities, Northamptonshire (Limited)
	Excell3 Limited
	Friends, Families and Travellers
	Humber All Nations Alliance
	MENTER (Minority Ethnic Network Eastern Region)
	Network for Black Professionals
	North of England Refugee Service
	Olmec
	Operation Black Vote
	PATH Yorkshire
	Race Equality Foundation
	Race on the Agenda (ROTA)
	Runnymede Trust
	Show Racism the Red Card
	Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust
	The Afiya Trust
	The Interlink Foundation
	The Monitoring Group
	The Rural Media Company
	Workers' Educational Association (WEA)
	Funding is subject to agreeing detailed work programmes and monitoring and reporting arrangements. Organisations will be expected to show how they make effective use of the financial assistance to deliver real impact.
	The fund will support a range of organisations working to tackle race inequalities and promote equality of opportunity for people of all ethnic groups. It will enable organisations to contribute to policy making.

Bob Ainsworth: I am pleased to announce that I am today publishing the Ministry of Defence's annual report and accounts 2008-09. It combines the Department's annual performance report and departmental resource accounts in a single document that provides a comprehensive overview of the MOD's financial and non-financial performance for the year, including the Departments contribution towards public service agreements and departmental strategic objective targets. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. It is also available online from the Department's website at: www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceFor/Researchers/.
	This last year has been a challenging one for defence. Operational tempos remained high, with operations in Afghanistan and Iraq continuing, although now in Iraq we have seen the end of our combat role and the return of the majority of our personnel.
	In those theatres and others, British forces have made, and continue to make, an enormous contribution to international security. Recent sad events have highlighted the commitment of all those involved, not just the men and women of the armed forces and the civilians who support them, but also those family members who remain at home and provide vital support to those who serve their country. The success of defence is dependent on them—they continue to do an exceptional job—and the Government remain committed to providing the support that they need and rightly deserve.

Quentin Davies: The Defence Industrial Strategy (DIS) highlighted the need for restructuring in the maritime industry to reduce overcapacity in the UK warship build and support industry after the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers (QE Class) have been built, and to ensure in the future a sustainable world-class industrial base. It is paramount that we balance supply and demand in the future, primarily to sustain key maritime skills and jobs that will, in turn, ensure our key industrial capabilities (KICs) are preserved.
	As part of the response to the DIS, the shipbuilding and support activities of BAE Systems and VT Shipbuilding came together last year to form a new single company—BVT Surface Fleet Limited (BVT). The company, which is integral to the QE Class and Type 45 programmes, was established as MOD's strategic complex warship design and build partner, and to work collaboratively with Babcock on surface warship support.
	Our joint aim is to deliver, in time, a world-class capability for the UK and global markets. In order to achieve this, we have been negotiating a long-term business agreement with BVT. Known as the terms of business agreement (TOBA), I am pleased to announce to the House today that we have now concluded these discussions and signed a 15 year commercial deal with the company. Worth around £230 million per year to BVT to sustain KICs required for essential operational sovereignty, the TOBA gives an unambiguous commitment to the company for a certain minimum level of workload in the areas of warship design and build work, and elements of warship support covering all surface warships. In return, BVT has committed to the transformation of the sector into a sustainable entity for the future. This will generate major financial benefits to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the Royal Navy worth a minimum of £350 million over the duration of the contract, with an aim to double this figure over the duration of the contract.
	The MOD expects this new commercial agreement, which is being progressed within the strategic framework of the maritime change programme (MCP), to provide a strong foundation for BVT to compete for non-MOD work, both in the UK and throughout the world. It will be for BVT to retain the capacity it deems necessary to meet the demands made of it and to transform the sector.
	This new arrangement is also intended to provide MOD with the confidence that BVT can deliver significant improvements in efficiency and performance needed to underpin the future naval shipbuilding programme, while providing the company with the certainty to enable investment and long term planning. Finally, it demonstrates that we continue to make best use of UK taxpayers' money in seeking opportunities for transformation and the delivery of efficiencies.

Chris Bryant: Copies of the British Council's annual report and accounts for the 2008-2009 financial year have been placed in the Library of the House.
	During the period the British Council received £200,963,000 grant-in-aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Phil Hope: I regret that the following written answers contained information which was incorrect:
	the written answer given to Ann Coffey on 23 June 2009;
	the written answer given to Mr. Stephen O'Brien on 21 April 2009, Official Report, column 587W;
	the written answer given to Mr. Don Foster on 5 November 2008, Official Report, column 521W;
	the written answer given to Sir Nicholas Winterton on 4 November 2008, Official Report, column 378W;
	the written answer given to Mr. Mike Penning in 22 October 2008, Official Report, column 270W;
	the written answer given to Sir Peter Soulsby on 15 July 2008, Official Report, column 359W;
	the written answer given to Mr. Mark Hoban on 3 April 2008, Official Report, column 288 W;
	the written answer given to Mr. David Simpson on 25 February 2008, Official, Report column 1196W;
	the written answer given to Mr. Norman Lamb on 5 February 2008, Official Report, column 1071W;
	the written answer given to Sandra Gidley on 25 January 2008, Official Report, column 17MC;
	the written answer given to Mr. Mark Simmonds on 3 December 2007, Official Report, column 1002W;
	the written answer given to Sandra Gidley on 19 July 2007, Official Report, column 641W;
	the written answer given to Mrs. Theresa May on 25 June 2007, Official Report, column 23 8W;
	the written answer given to Mr. Lansley on 4 June 2007, Official Report, column 302W;
	the written answer given to Mr. Mike Penning on 17 April 2007, Official Report, column 576W;
	the written answer given to Mr. Lansley on 15 January 2007, Official Report, column 908W;
	the written answer given to Mr. Swire on 6 December 2006, Official Report, column 568W;
	the written answer given to Mr. Lansley on 8 November 2006, Official Report, column 1871W;
	the written answer given to Mr. Hayes on 19 July 2006, Official Report, column 507W;
	the written answer given to Justine Greening on 5 June 2006, Official Report, column 382W;
	the written answer given to Mr. David T.C. Davies on 28 March 2006, Official Report, column 947W;
	the written answer given to Mr. Weir on 28 March 2006, Official Report, column 947W;
	the written answer given to Anne Milton on 20 March 2006, Official Report, column 138W;
	the written answer given to Mr. Andrew Turner on 7 July 2005, Official Report, column 570W;
	the written answer given to Mr. Burstow on 7 July 2005, Official Report, column 576W;
	These answers all related to Department of Health advertising spend between 2004-05 and 2008-09. The incorrect information was a result of some non-advertising expenditure being included within the figures. There was also evidence that provisional figures rather than the final discounted totals had been used. In order to prevent this issue from recurring, improvements have been made in record keeping and processes in answering PQs on advertising spend.
	The following table shows the correct departmental advertising expenditure over the last five completed financial years. A further breakdown of these figures has been placed in the Library.
	
		
			 Department of Health Advertising Spend in £ millions(1)(2004-05 — 2008-09) 
			 Campaign 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09(2) 
			 Alcohol (from 06/07 DH contribution to campaign run jointly with HO) 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.61 4.77 
			 Antibiotics 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.39 1.15 
			 Change4Life 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.69 
			 Drugs (DH contribution to campaign run jointly with HO) 0.91 0.18 1.34 0.67 1.45 
			 Flu (Immunisation) 1.45 1.83 1.11 0.98 1.42 
			 Hepatitis C 0.00 0.00 0.52 1.34 1.30 
			 HPV Vaccination 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.80 
			 Immunisation 0.00 0.00 1.66 0.00 0.32 
			 National Health Service including nurse recruitment 5.96 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 
			 NHS Injury Benefits Scheme 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 
			 NHS Choices 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.55 
			 Patient Choice 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 
			 Respiratory & Hand Hygiene 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 1.53 
			 Sexual health/teenage pregnancy 1.40 0.00 2.88 3.11 2.83 
			 Social care/worker recruitment 1.80 2.42 2.31 2.22 2.03 
			 Smoking - Tobacco Control 20.05 20.80 13.17 10.79 23.38 
			 Stroke 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.52 
			 Tobacco Legislation 0.00 0.00 0.32 5.38 0.00 
			 Winter (Get the right treatment/ ask about medicines day 0.54 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 
			 5 a Day 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 
			 Elll/EHIC 0.24 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 
			 DH outdoor campaign 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 
			 TOTALS (£ millions) 32.73 27.47 23.92 26.24 56.43 
			 (1)Advertising spend is defined as covering only media spend (inclusive of agency commissions but excluding production costs, COI commission and VAT). All figures are rounded to the nearest £10,000. These figures do not include DH recruitment/classified advertising costs and ad hoc spend under £10,000. These figures may include occasional minor spend through COI by NHS organisations, to supplement national campaigns in their area. While this expenditure has been excluded as far as possible so that this chart reflects central DH spend, it would incur disproportionate cost to validate that every item of NHS expenditure has been removed. (2)Provisional figures

Andy Burnham: On 17 March 2009, the Healthcare Commission, the independent health regulator, published a damning report into the failings of emergency care provided by MidStaffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. Since then, the Government and the local NHS have had two priorities: first to ensure services at the trust improve as soon as possible to the level that patients and the public have a right to expect; and second to ensure the right lessons are learned both locally and nationally, so the events of Mid Staffordshire cannot be repeated.
	The previous Secretary of State commissioned two rapid reviews from Professor Sir George Alberti the National Clinical Director for Emergency Care, on the present state of emergency services at the trust and Dr. David Colin-Thomé on how the broader system was not able to detect the failings sooner. All their recommendations were accepted and the reports were published, alongside the Government's response on 30 April 2009.
	The new independent regulator for health and social care, the Care Quality Commission, has today published their three month stock-take report. In short, it concludes there has been some progress, but there is much more to do. Its analysis echoes the concerns that Ministers have heard from members of the local community.
	Having listened carefully to these concerns, I have resolved that further action is necessary. Today I am announcing a package of measures to lead to a step change in improving local services and to help heal the wounds of the past, so the trust and their local community can face the future together with renewed confidence and optimism.
	I have worked closely with Monitor, the Foundation Trust regulator, to ensure a new leadership team with the skills and experience to transform services at the hospital is appointed as a matter of urgency. I am pleased to welcome Sir Stephen Moss, the new Chair, and Antony Sumara, the new chief executive, to their roles. Monitor and the Care Quality Commission will continue to oversee their progress, with a further review due in October.
	Fundamental to the trust's success will be listening to patients, to ensure their voice counts and that they are an integral part of shaping and influencing the future of the hospital. That is why I have asked Dr. David Colin-Thomé to support and advise South Staffordshire Primary Care Trust to play their full part alongside the trust in reaching out and involving people locally.
	It is clear from listening to those affected that rebuilding local confidence and restoring trust will take time. The full impact of what happened at Mid Staffordshire is revealed through the personal stories of those affected and it is clear to me that these experiences need to be properly aired if the local NHS is to learn and, in time, move on.
	I have therefore decided, following detailed discussions between my Department and the new management of the trust, that it would be appropriate to set up a further independent inquiry. I do not believe it is necessary for this to be a full public inquiry, given the thoroughness of the reports already produced by the Healthcare Commission, Professor Sir George Alberti and David Colin-Thomé, as well as the availability of an independent clinical review to those who have concerns about the care they or a loved one received at the hospital.
	This inquiry's focus will be on ensuring that patients or their families have an opportunity to raise their concerns. It is important, given the events of the past, for those who depend upon the care provided by the trust to be confident that they have been listened to and that any further lessons not already identified by the thorough inquiries that have already occurred be learned.
	Robert Francis QC has agreed to chair the inquiry. The terms of reference (a full copy has been placed in the Library) will be:
	to investigate any individual case relating to the care provided by Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust between 2005 and 2008 that, in its opinion, causes concern and to the extent that it considers appropriate;
	in the light of such investigation, to consider whether any additional lessons are to be learned beyond those identified by the inquiries conducted by the Healthcare Commission, Professor Alberti and Dr Colin-Thomé; and, if so,
	to consider what additional action is necessary for the new hospital management to ensure the Trust is delivering a sustainably good service to its local population; and
	to prepare and deliver to the Secretary of State a report of its findings.
	It is important that this is swift so as not to unduly distract the new management and staff at the hospital from improving services for patients today. The inquiry is therefore planned to report to me by the end of 2009. Should the chair of the inquiry consider that it is necessary to have the power to require witnesses to attend, as Secretary of State I have the power to convert the inquiry into an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005.
	There are also national lessons to learn from the investigation at Mid Staffordshire. Dr. David Colin-Thomé's report contained some important recommendations on this.
	Many of these are already being addressed, for example through the implementation of Lord Darzi's vision High Quality Care for All and our World Class Commissioning programme. In addition, the new National Quality Board will report to me by the end of the year with recommendations on how best to ensure any early signs that something is going wrong in the NHS are picked up immediately, that the right organisations are alerted, and action is taken quickly.
	The Mid Staffordshire case has also illustrated that the current regulatory framework for foundation trusts (FTs) needs updating. The FT model is a key plank of reform in the NHS, successfully rewarding high performance with greater freedom and autonomy. The policy is based on the premise that FT status is a privilege to be earned and valued—an incentive to drive up quality, innovation, productivity and local accountability. However, it is clear that in some exceptional circumstances, where an FT has failed to live up to this standard and public confidence has been damaged, it may be right for the privileges of FT status to be withdrawn.
	This is why I intend to consult on legislative proposals to enable Monitor to "de-authorise" a foundation trust, subject to agreement by the Secretary of State, where it is clear an organisation has forfeited its right to the freedoms and flexibilities afforded by FT status. It is also important that where there is public concern, the Secretary of State is able to express his views and request that Monitor considers intervention in a particular way. I will also consult on legislative proposals so that, in these circumstances, if Monitor disagrees with the approach suggested by Ministers, they should be obliged to justify this position publicly. The Government will issue a consultation on both these issues in the next few days.
	By focusing on the powers and actions of Monitor to intervene, I believe we achieve the appropriate balance between ensuring fundamental failure is addressed and maintaining the significant benefits of the FT model, which gives FTs greater freedom in return for high quality.
	All of us who care passionately about the health service were appalled by the events at Mid Staffordshire, which are in stark contrast to the dedication and professionalism shown by NHS staff every day up and down the country. The measures I have announced today, building on those already taken, demonstrate the collective commitment in all parts of the system, to ensure there will be no repeat.

Alan Johnson: On 24 February the Home Office and Ministry of Justice, supported by the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA), held a conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the publication of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report. The conference, with an opening speech by Doreen Lawrence, OBE, reviewed the progress that has been made over the last 10 years, shared good practice, and helped to set out a focus for future work.
	On or around this anniversary three reports were published: "Stephen Lawrence Review" an independent commentary by Dr. Richard Stone; "Police and racism: what has been achieved 10 years after the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report" by the EHRC and "The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry 10 Years On" an analysis of the literature by the Runnymede Trust.
	I am today publishing a report of the 10 anniversary conference and a Government response to Dr. Stone's, the EHRC and Runnymede Trust reports.
	The conference and the reports acknowledge that the police service and other criminal justice agencies have made progress since the publication of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report, in 1999. There have been many positive changes in relation to race equality and the fact that the overwhelming majority of the recommendations of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report have been addressed is a measure of this. However, we must, as the conference proceedings and the reports also demonstrate, not become complacent. Much has been achieved, but there is still considerably more to do. That is why we have published an action plan with the conference report, setting out areas for particular focus, building on existing work, as we move forward from the anniversary. This work includes: increasing the recruitment, retention and progression of minority ethnic police officers and police staff; reducing unjustified disproportionality in the use of stop and search powers; and continuing to improve the reporting and recording of racist incidents.
	Copies of the conference report and the government response to Dr. Stone's, the EHRC and the Runnymede Trust reports will be placed in the Library of the House later today.

Alan Campbell: I wish to respond to the publication entitled: "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals—Great Britain—2008", which was laid before Parliament today.
	This annual statistical report meets the requirement in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to inform Parliament about the licensed use of animals for experimental or other scientific purposes. It also forms the basis for meeting periodic reporting requirements at EU level. A hard copy is available and supplementary information with additional tables is also available on the Home Office website.
	The statistical report shows an overall increase over the previous year of 14 per cent. in the number of procedures undertaken. The total number of procedures was just under 3.7 million, an increase of 454,000 over the previous year. There has now been an increase for the seventh year running and is the highest total since 1992. A number of factors, such as investment in research and development and strategic funding priorities, determine the overall level of scientific procedures.
	Non-toxicological procedures accounted for about 87 per cent. of the procedures carried out. These included fundamental research in human and veterinary medicine to improve understanding of disease mechanisms and possible therapeutic options, and development of vaccines.
	Most toxicological studies (79 per cent.) were for the safety and efficacy testing of new drugs and medicines and the majority of all toxicological procedures (71 per cent.) were performed in order to carry out legal or statutory requirements.
	In line with previous years, those procedures that used mice or rats (or other rodents) were the great majority at 77 per cent. Those using fish amounted to 17 per cent. and those using birds, 3 per cent. The total of all procedures using dogs, cats, horses and non-human primates, that is those species offered special protection by the Act, was less than 1 per cent. of the total.
	Genetically normal animals were used in about 1.9 million regulated procedures, (up 160,000 (9 per cent.) on 2007 figures, largely as a result of the use offish and mice in fundamental biological research and applied studies. Genetically modified animals and those with a harmful genetic mutation (nearly all were rodents, fish or amphibians) were used in 1.76 million regulated procedures representing, 48 per cent. of all procedures for 2008 (compared with 46 per cent in 2007 and 16 per cent. in 1995).
	Advances in the opportunities to use genetically altered animals for new areas of biomedical research means that the trend of increased production and use of genetically altered animals has continued. It allows a more precise and often less invasive study of physiological studies and disease mechanisms that was previously possible. Most of the animals concerned are mice, which appear and live as normal. Many are only used in breeding programmes. In fact nearly two fifths of all procedures in 2008 were accounted for by breeding procedures (38 per cent.) for the production of harmful mutant and genetically modified animals. Mice (89 per cent.) and fish (9 per cent.) were used in most of these procedures.
	I should point out in relation to the statistics, that the Home Office, as regulatory authority under the 1986 Act, does have an effect on the overall amount of animal research and testing that takes place. This is done by ensuring, as part of our licensing function, that the provisions of the Act are rigorously applied in each programme of work and that only work that is scientifically justified, minimises the numbers of animals used and animal suffering that may be caused, is authorised.
	The statistical report and supplementary information can be found at:
	http://scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.uk/animal-research/publications-and-reference/statistics/